Docket – September 25, 2018

Virginia Court of Appeals

Darley v. Commonwealth (U), CAV (Humphreys) from Chesapeake (Wright).

A repairman’s conviction for petit larceny of valuables from the house he was servicing wasn’t supported by sufficient evidence to exclude a reasonable hypothesis of innocence.

The defendant was performing repairs (with permission) when no one else was at home, and his fingerprints were on the box of a watch that was missing after the defendant’s work. But a third person could have entered the house when the neither the repairman nor the homeowner was present. The homeowner also admitted that the watch box might have been on top of the dresser where the defendant put his work tools down at an earlier time.

Conviction reversed; indictment dismissed.

U.S. District Court – Eastern District

White Coat Waste Project v. Gtr. Richmond Transit Co., EDVA at Richmond (Lauck).

Plaintiff White Coat Waste Project sought to place an ad on GRTC buses advocating an end to experimentation on dogs at Richmond Hunter Holmes McGuire VA Medical Center. When GRTC denied the proposal based on its policy against “political” advertisements, the group sued, claiming viewpoint discrimination and unconstitutional vagueness. White Coat plausibly alleged that GRTC is a public entity that provides transportation, that the ad spaces are a non-public form, and that the ad restrictions are not viewpoint-neutral.

Motion to dismiss denied.

Morris v. Gen. Info. Servs. Inc., EDVA at Richmond (Lauck).

Applicants to work at the U.S. Postal Service didn’t have standing to sue the agency for conducting a background check without making a “stand-alone” disclosure required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act. The plaintiffs didn’t allege that they were confused by the extraneous information on the disclosure form or that they wouldn’t have consented to the background check had it not been included. Because they didn’t allege that they suffered harms that Congress sought to prevent via the FCRA, they have not alleged an injury-in-fact to support standing.

Motion to dismiss granted.

U.S. District Court – Western District

Hurd v. Cardinal Logistics Mgm’t Corp., WDVA at Roanoke (Dillon).

The plaintiff was entitled to partial summary judgment as to the defendant’s pre-offer medical examinations and inquiries – per se ADA violations. As an applicant, the plaintiff didn’t need to qualify as an individual with a disability to bring his claim, and he established liability via lost wages and mileage incurred while traveling to the examinations. However, because there was no dispute that the plaintiff didn’t meet USDOT standards to work as a commercial driver, the defendant was entitled to summary judgment as to the plaintiff’s ADA failure-to-hire claim.



Categories: Daily Dockets

%d bloggers like this: